Posted by Jane
(JanEl) on 1/5/2008, 1:44:12, in reply to "Re: Succession laws revisited - for the umpteenth time"
71.113.195.84
--Previous Message--
: The king would prefer that the new rules
: were applied from the next generation
: onwards, without changing the rights and
: status of his living children. In other
: words, the law should not have been applied
: retroactively, so that the heir apparent was
: not "downgraded" in favour of his
: sister,
As I posted below, my understanding is that Parliament began moves to change the succession law to absolute primogeniture even before the marriage of King Carl XVI Gustaf and the birth of Victoria. His Majesty must certainly have been aware of what was going on -- and from the beginning countenanced (however much he found the idea displeasing) the possibility of his daughter becoming heiress apparent to the throne.
As has been explained: the procedure for amending the Constitution was a rather long and dragged out process, taking several years -- by which time the princess got a brother. But the first vote in Parliament had already been passed, by the time Prince Carl Philip was born. So most politicians saw fit to apply the new law retroactively -- since moves had been made from the beginning with the mind to apply it to the present king's children.
Everybody knew that the consequences of a retroactively applying the new succession law would be mostly theoretical -- not practical. Carl Philip, after all, was only an infant at the time of the change: as such, he did not grow up with the expectation of inheriting the throne. The situation was vastly different in Norway -- where Crown Prince Haakon Magnus was already 17 years old, by the time the constitutional amendment got finally passed by Parliament (my understanding is that the procedure there was also a rather long and dragged out affair). Like his father (the present King Harald V), he grew up thinking of himself as a direct heir to the throne.
: creating the potential for hard
: resentment and terrible relationship within
: the family for the years to come. Luckily,
: at least, this seems not to have been the
: case.
I've heard this explanation, too -- that in fact, Queen Silvia also (for the same reason) had initial doubts and reservations about the change (although she appears to have warmed to it much earlier than her husband).
Of course, one could argue that there would have been potential for discord, either way. For in theory, the Swedish Parliament could have gone in the way of the Norwegian -- by postponing implementation of the new law for one generation (and granting the sisters of Prince Carl Philip succession rights behind their brother). Even so, once the children grew up, they would find out about all the machinations and political maneuverings surrounding the succession issue, around the times of their births -- and it could have been Victoria who came to resent her brother ("Had Parliament only acted much sooner to change the succession law, I would be heiress apparent today -- as you would not have been born crown prince. The issue of retroactive or postponed implementation would never have become relevant, and you simply would have been born behind me in the succession").
As it was, Parliament had the final say (after all, Sweden is first and foremost a democracy, where the monarchy exists at the will of the people -- is it not?). And it's quite fortunate that the results have not been the disaster that the king and queen initially feared. By all accounts, their three children enjoy a wonderfully close relationship -- and Prince Carl Philip does not appear to resent his position as second in line to the throne (at least he hasn't complained openly in public about it).
Even King Carl XVI Gustaf appears resigned to the situation -- seeing how popular Crown Princess Victoria is, and how well she is performing her royal duties. So in retrospect, with the benefit of hindsight, one can all say that Parliament did the right thing at the time.
On a side note: someone explained to me that in today's world, most royals would actually prefer NOT to be the heir. Victoria, Frederik, and Willem-Alexander, for instance, have all had to struggle with their destinies (perhaps the Swedish crown princess actually secretly wishes that Parliament postponed implementation of the new law, as did the Norwegian. The Danish heir is rumored to have once contemplated suicide! And even the Dutch heir has appeared awkward and ill at ease in his position: certainly he has a tough act to follow, after his mother and grandmother).
By contrast, minor cadet princes are said to enjoy their positions. It has, in fact, been said to be the best of both worlds: you get to enjoy all the privileges of a high status -- while at the same time not being subject to the pressures of a sovereign or heir.
